Grimshaw Vs. Ford Motor Co.

Word got out about the Pinto gas tank problems, and soon this became a huge press-related issue for Ford. Management at Ford decided to do a risk/benefit analysis, but it determined that the amount of money made off the car was higher then the cost to pay the liability to those that got injured or killed. In the determination, management decided profit outweighed human life. The issues began with the lack of care Ford put towards the engineering process in pre-development, and the lack of conscience exhibited by the manufacturer when confronted with defective obstacles which could have delayed the production and cost millions of dollars, which in their mind was not an option.

In this essay, I will argue that Ford Motor Company’s business behavior was unethical as demonstrated in the Ford Pinto Case. Ford did not reveal all the facts to consumers about a harmful gas tank design in the Ford Pinto. They tried to justify their decision to sell an unsafe car by using a Cost-Benefit Analysis which determined it was cheaper to sell the cars without changing to a safer gas tank. The price of not fixing the gas tanks is human injuries and fatalities. By choosing not to make the Pinto a safer vehicle Ford placed a price on the head of every consumer. Ford’s primary concern was to maximize profits. Ford had a duty and ethical responsibility to customers to

Charles Laverne Singleton was executed on January 6, 2004, killed at the Arkansas for the murder of 19-year-old Mary Lou York on June 1, 1979. Reports show that after his sentence and incarceration, Mr. Singleton enter into the unstable mental illness schizophrenia/psychosis. Although 1986 U.S. Supreme Court judgment, Ford vs. Wainwright gives that the killing of the crazy person is illegal, Mr. Singleton was executed twenty-four-and-a-half years after at the age of 44 for the punishable murder of Ms. York. Preceding his death, he had four previous execution dates, all of which were requested, mostly below 1990 U.S. Supreme Court conclusion Washington vs. Harper, which lets state authorities to give a prison inmate who has a harsh mental illness

Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.

The Elkhart County Grand Jury took up the matter and filed a charge of criminal homicide against Ford, the Automobile American Corporation that designed the Pinto car models. According to Elkhart County Grand prosecutor, Michael A. Cosentino, Ford was guilty of reckless homicide, because the company committed a conscious, plain, and unjustifiable neglect of harm that positioned the gas tank in the rear end of the car without proven protection. Besides, Ford engaged in negligence and substantial deviation from the acceptable standards of conduct. The major focus of the case entailed the expanding and assessment of acceptable standards the company violated in the process of manufacture of Pinto cars.

Analyzing the case in detail would reveal that there were strong extenuating circumstances in the ruling. The evidence of guilt in the case was overwhelming. There were eye witnesses to the crime along with the fact that the victim knew the defendant and lived long enough to identify him as the perpetrator. The state argued that the murder victim’s statements relating to the defendant’s cutting her throat while dying fell under the excited utterance exception rule against hearsay since they were made under the stress of the event. But with the testimony of the eyewitnesses the case was basically easy to prosecute. During the trial there was no mention of Singleton being mentally ill. He was not diagnosed with mental illness until after

In the event of prejudicial or harmful error has occurred, the court shall take necessary action to amend the error with a motion to correct error. A motion to correct error must be filed within 30 days after a final judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary. In Stark v. Ford Motor Co., the plaintiff believes that the court erred in submitting an affirmative defense to the jury. Stark v. Ford Motor Co., 693 S.E.2d 253 (N.C.App. 2010). If this is the case, the Court of Appeals may grant a new trial in order to cure the error. Ind. R. Trial P. 59. Another case that requested action because of an error was Sapp v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. When calculating attorney fees, a necessary hearing was not held, and the court warranted

Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty

After analyzing the cause of the crash, experts identified that there were significant design deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for

This includes design, manufacturing and marketing defects. For example, car defects which result in injury or death are a design and manufacturing defect. Improperly labeling or inadequate safety warnings are marketing defects. While there is no federal product liability law, every state has their own version. Having high safety and quality standards is simply inadequate to protect your company. Keep in mind that there are countless opportunities for liability lawsuits when it comes to products. The most infamous lawsuit, involving an elderly women who spilled hot McDonald’s coffee in her lap, resulted in a 2.7 million dollar settlement. Always promptly respond to any defect concerns with the help of an experienced

In the case of even small defects, issuing an auto recall can have serious consequences for the companies that issue them. The purpose of my research this semester is to observe the economic fallout of issuing an auto recall, in the cases of both life-threatening defects and mere convenience issues. Furthermore, I would like to use this foundation of research to observe how customer loyalty to auto makers who have issued these recalls

In my opinion recalls are issues brought on by under testing and companies reacting to pressure from shareholders to release a new product. Bobcat and John deer are two major farm equipment manufacturing companies who both have had recalls in this last year. John deer has alerted a recall due to faulty hand brake which can lead to injury or even death among users. In addition, Bobcat has issued a recall on their prowlers because of fuel leaks on their throttle which may lead to fire hazards. Both of these problems can lead to serious injury or even death (CPSC, 2015). In both of these recalls each company have encouraged buyers to stop use immediately and return to them for free repairs. I believe that this is a good first step for the company

There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that

Product recalls have opened the company to numerous lawsuits from consumers that were hurt by the recalled products.

Everyone except Ford’s top executives, who in an internal document cited the potential danger. So not only did they know about it, but they calculated that it would be cheaper to pay out possible injury claims then it would be to recall all the vehicles. This ethical dilemma came to a head when three teenage girls were killed in Indiana while in a Ford Pinto. With the bad press and with company officials being indicted with negligence and homicide, Ford was forced to recall all their Pinto vehicles. Ethical issues in the auto industry regarding product safety are dangerous and are linked to human lives. The decisions that Ford executives made had a direct impact on those three teenage girls and the blood was left in their hands. This is just one of many faulty decisions made in automakers history that helped mold the unethical decisions made by Volkswagen in the most recent ethical issue facing the auto industry.